Please, click on any PDF link below for easy printing:
Vascular
Surgery Sample Case 1.pdf Vascular
Surgery Sample Case 2.pdf
Vascular
Surgery Sample Case 3.pdf Vascular
Surgery Sample Case 4.pdf
Please select from the titles below which describe the corresponding sample Case Evaluation Report. By clicking on the title of interest, you will go to that report.
Over the next few months we will be adding more sample cases, covering all
topics of Medical Malpractice. Please check back very soon!
Vascular Surgery
Arteriogram Via the Oxillary (armpit) Artery Causes Injury With no Repair Done.
Certain salient aspects of this case are summarized below.
1) This Patient was 64 years old on March 3 when he underwent a balloon angioplasty of the proximal superficial femoral artery due to an ischemic left leg. This procedure was performed by Dr. Smith of Hospital #1. The details of this hospital admission were incomplete and no Informed Consent form was available for review. The signs and symptoms that he experienced due to this left leg arteriosclerosis, or "hardening of the arteries", were also unavailable.
2) The technique that Dr. Smith used was an axillary artery approach through the armpit, into the aorta and through the previous graft of the proximal superficial femoral artery. During this procedure, Dr. Smith noted a stenosis, or blockage, with difficulty passing this catheter, but an eventual successful balloon angioplasty with restoration of good arterial blood flow was achieved. During such a procedure, a narrowed artery is expanded using a catheter, which inflates a balloon-like device to widen the diameter of this blood vessel. Follow-up left leg ultrasound scanning on March 17 revealed improved blood flow, or at least a partially successful procedure.
3) Almost immediately in the postoperative period, he experienced left arm pain which was treated with pain medication. These records are also incompletely available and should be obtained. On March 6 he was evaluated by Dr. #2 of the Emergency Ward for continued left arm pain. Examination revealed motor and sensation abnormalities of several of his fingers. The case was discussed with Dr. #3 following a duplex-imaging scan revealed a partially clotted pseudoaneurysm of the left axillary artery. This is a known and usually preventable complication, but since it was causing symptoms, urgent surgery was indicated. For reasons that are unclear, no acute intervention, such as a decompression was felt to be indicated at that time, although the report of Dr. #4, the Radiologist, indicated a possible need for surgical repair.
4) This patient has been suffering from significant left arm weakness and median as well as ulnar nerve denervation symptoms since that time. He has been evaluated by several physicians, including Dr. #5 of the Hospital #2. In his note dated September 20, Dr. #5, a Neurosurgeon, recommended a probable need for decompressive surgery of the brachial plexus. Unfortunately, no further medical records were available following this date.
In summary, patient underwent a balloon angioplasty procedure by Dr. Smith on March 3. It is unknown if this procedure was performed following proper informed consent, including the risks, benefits and alternative treatments to this procedure. It is also unclear if this procedure was performed using optimal precautions, and techniques, such as fluoroscopy, to avoid such complications as damage to the axillary artery and resultant nerve compression of adjacent nerve trunks. Following this postoperative complication, negligent Emergency Ward care appears to have been delivered by Drs. #2 and #3 as decompression surgery was delayed or omitted. Finally, he was evaluated on several occasions by Neurologists such as Dr. #6 and definitive decompressive surgery was again delayed or omitted.
In this specific case, Expert opinions in the areas of Vascular Surgery, Emergency Medicine, Neurology and Neurosurgery should be strongly considered to further bolster the merits of this case. However, it will also be helpful to obtain a more complete set of medical records.
Back to Top
Laparoscopic Surgery to Remove Remaining Diseased Kidneys After a Successful Transplant, Severs Three Arteries with Two Not Sutured Closed and He Bleeds to Death in ICU.
This is an extremely disturbing case, which may blur the line between gross negligence and manslaughter.
I will discuss all the facts and opinions below, but much discovery is needed, including obtaining missing records, before I can reach a final opinion. You need to obtain a certified complete set of the 2/15/01 Hospital records, including the admission History & Physical (as well as all the recent office records that lead up to this admission), the operative report, the anesthesia record, the Operating Room Nurses’ notes, including all cardiac arrest records, the AICU Doctor and Nurses’ notes, and the pathology report on his removed kidneys.
This patient had a functioning kidney transplant two years before this admission because of hematuria (blood in his urine), presumably from a left kidney mass that might be a tumor.
When there is blood in the urine, standard procedure is to look into the bladder
(cystoscopy) to try to see what ureter (urine tube from each kidney to the bladder) the blood may be coming from, as well as sampling any urine flow from each ureter for analysis for tumor cells (cytology). Was that done?
A CT scan was done, which allegedly found “lesions” of the left kidney. On 1/10, five weeks before surgery, an MRI scan with contrast (Gadolinium) found a normal transplanted kidney in its usual pelvic location, and “an approximately 2-cm (1 inch = 2.54 cm) projection on the left kidney. In the “Impression” for the left kidney, Dr. #1 said that “the possibility of a tumor cannot be excluded. Follow-up CT scan in two to three months is recommended.” And in the text of his report, he said: “The characteristics of this lesion are also somewhat obscured by the motion artifacts.” Why wasn’t this MRI repeated in the next five weeks? Why wasn’t his recommendation for a follow-up CT scan done?
Since there was bleeding and a lesion, the probability that if this was a tumor (cancer) in continuity with the urine flow would be higher that most kidney tumors that are inside the kidney flesh and do not touch the main urine flow. Therefore the probability of a positive cytology, if it was cancer, would be greater. Were any cytology studies done, even with him urinating into a bottle? And those cells can be concentrated by a centrifuge to give a greater reliability for that histology study. Was it done and repeated? They had time.
Also, with the concern for a tumor, an arteriogram (artery x-ray contrast study) of the renal (kidney) arteries to see the core of each kidney is valuable to evaluate each kidney for cancer. Cysts have no blood flow and tumors greater blood flow than the flesh of the kidney. Even with failed kidneys, the blood flow is patent. That catheterization of the artery can be done via his arm to reduce the risk of dislodging any cholesterol debris lining his arteries. Was it done?
What consent did he sign? With what informed consent (including the testing that should be done and may not have been done)? What experience did Dr. #2 and any assistants of his have with the performance of the “laparoscopic nephrectomy” (removal of the kidney via the use of a viewing and operating tube) at that time? Who operated (versus assisted) on each side? Why did they operate on the right side when the left kidney was the one in which the MRI raised the question of tumor? The chance of a kidney tumor on both sides would be remote.
All the above concerns are about negligence in his preoperative evaluation and informed consent.
The autopsy report in the middle paragraph of page two is shocking as are the “arterial vasculature” findings on pages four and five. The left side went uneventfully. But then someone proceeded to operate on the right side. Although one renal (kidney) artery is most common, second (accessory) renal arteries are found in 25% of kidneys (see: Lloyd,
L.W. (1935). The Renal Artery in Whites and American Negroes. American Journal Physical Anthropology, vol. 20: page 153, and Grant’s Atlas of Anatomy by James Anderson, plates 2-113: anomalies of the kidney and
ureter). A Surgeon does NOT cut without a clear view to be sure he is not severing an artery or vein that has not been ligated (tied off) or clipped closed on both sides of the site chosen for his cut.
In the autopsy description, it says: “The right kidney was removed, but the bleeding continued.” The reason is found on the bottom of page four: There are two right renal ostia (openings from the aorta: main artery in the body) identified. The lower ostium is probed into an attached 3.0-cm segment of renal artery, which has been ligated with silk suture material. The upper ostium is probed into an attached 2.3-cm segment of artery, which is opened at the transected (severed) end.” That is why he hemorrhaged. No one secured it before cutting it. And the renal vein also was not ligated and would hemorrhage.
If an arteriogram would have been done, that common anomaly would have been found. If they would not have needlessly operated on the right side (based so far on the records I have reviewed), none of this catastrophe would have occurred. But it gets much worse.
They opened the abdomen or his flank area to reach the kidney and did not get control of that bleeding site, and somehow managed to cut across his right common iliac artery (the aorta divides into the right and left common iliac arteries) in the lower abdomen, nowhere near (in surgical terms) the renal artery. This transection was 2.1 cm distal (downstream) from the aortic bifurcation (division into both common iliac arteries). They managed to gain control by stapling that negligent blunder cut at both ends (but it cut off artery blood flow to this downstream kidney transplant, but that obviously is moot now, except as a measure of punitive damages).
The horror is that: “There is a nearly complete vascular laceration of the right common iliac artery located 1.3 cm distal to the aortic bifurcation and 0.8 cm above the proximal (on the upstream) surgical staple line.” Therefore with each contraction of his heart, blood poured out of this neglected-to-be-repaired artery hole!
He went into cardiac arrest (and temporarily did not bleed until resuscitated) but: “The wound was closed (abdominal incision, not the hole in both arteries: right accessory renal and right common iliac), and the patient was taken to the AICU at approximately 10:25 p.m. He arrived in the AICU with a heart rate of 40 (in profound shock and almost dead) followed by asystole (no heartbeat: death).
To not control such major arteries (unligated accessory right renal artery and transected right common iliac artery) is gross negligence, but to suture his abdominal wound closed and ship him to the AICU to die, in my opinion, is manslaughter!
Unless their operative report, other records and detailed discovery from everyone who was in that Operating Room on 2/15 gives an honest and rational explanation, they all should have their licenses revoked.
The Defense would claim he had a shortened longevity from his significant coronary artery disease with generally 90-95% narrowing
(stenosis) of all his coronary arteries. Did he have any chest pain with exercise or sex? He had no heart attack. He had no cancer found at autopsy or any other life-threatening or shortening disease.
Was the laparoscopic procedure videotaped? They often are. Was there a death conference (it had to occur) and can you obtain these records, or at least depose everyone who attended it? Were any sanctions given to anyone? Were any changes made at that hospital because of this “complication?” Was the State Board of Medical Examiners advised of this case and did they investigate? Did they Joint Commission on Health Care Organizations (from Chicago) that certifies hospitals do any investigation?
After final review of the documents noted above, I would recommend Board Certified Experts we have available in Urology and Vascular Surgery to give you their Expert opinions on negligence and causation and an opinion by a Board Certified Cardiologist on longevity re: his heart.
Thank you for allowing our organization to assist you with this very important case. We remain available to continue assisting you and the family.
Back to Top
Knee dislocation with severely torn popliteal artery with delays in surgical artery repair, and incomplete fasciotomy (muscle tension release procedure) resulting in amputation.
The patient was at the time of the accident a 19-year-old white Caucasian male. He was riding a dirt bike where he was living. He was possibly under the influence of alcohol, and he popped a wheelie and lost control of his bike at that point. There was no collision with anything, and after losing control, he injured his left knee, most probably with an hyper-extension mechanism.
He was complaining of severe pain in his left leg, he was not able to use it, and then the emergency crew or medical services were brought. After being transferred to another ambulance on his way to the hospital, for unknown reasons, he was admitted to Hospital #1 on the night of March 17. His admission was around 7:00 p.m., and the reported incident or his first pickup by the ambulance service was around 5:45 p.m., if the records are accurate for that particular time report.
A final diagnosis at the Emergency Room by the Physician, Dr. #1, was of a left knee dislocation with possible associated vascular injury. This was confirmed by Dr. #2, the Orthopedic Surgeon who was asked to consult. He was there within 40 minutes of the arrival of the patient and, based on the x-ray and his clinical assessment, immediately diagnosed a dislocated left knee and that it was imperative to immediately remove the patient from the Emergency Room department and to send him to the Operating Room. The patient was given general anesthesia, and a closed reduction of the anterior dislocation of the left knee was performed by Dr. #2.
Review of the operative report says that prior to his reduction, he was not able to find any distal pulse in the arteries of the left leg, and that the pulse did not return after the closed reduction. Although it was clinically obvious that he had a vascular injury, the patient was extubated and sent to the radiology suite for having a full angiogram (artery x-ray dye study) performed. This took about two hours which, I think, is an unnecessary delay since it was obvious clinically, he had an arterial injury. Vascular exploration should have been commenced immediately in the operating room under the same anesthesia, and if needed to be, an on table arteriogram could have been performed prior to the definite surgery.
I cannot find through the records if the angiongram, as performed in the radiology suite, was standard procedure or it was originating as a direct order from Dr. #3, the Vascular Surgeon. Anyway, this constituted an unnecessary delay, standard tests pointed that it was obvious clinically, as reported by Dr. #2, that there was an arterial injury that needed immediate exploration, and to send the patient down to the radiology suite for having an angiogram constituted an unnecessary delay and seems to be departing from usual standards.
The Surgeon who performed the vascular exploration was Dr. #3, assisted by Dr. #4, and the surgery was done the same night after the arteriogram. The day of surgery is listed as March 18, but since the surgery ended up after midnight and was dictated after the surgery, the date of surgery is actually the continuation of the surgery started on March 17.
Report of the surgery shows that a left popliteal artery was found to be avulsed (torn) from its distal insertion, and there was a large hematoma (blood clot). Exploration of the popliteal space was done, repair of the popliteal artery avulsion with a reverse left saphenous vein graft was done, and medial and lateral fasciotomy (severing the fibrous flesh surrounding the muscles) were supposedly performed. We don't know the details about the fasciotomy as mentioned, and an on table intraoperative arteriogram was performed during surgery.
I reviewed the arteriograms and, although there was some reperfusion (blood flow), there was a lot of spasm at the saphenous vein graft site, and there was no evidence of any good distal perfusion after that surgery. It was reported that a good flow was obtained, and the patient was sent to the ICU, where the vascular assessment was done. Apparently, after an hour or two, they were able to find a distal pulse and a slight recoloration of the limb and an improvement of its warmth.
The patient's case did not progress well after the surgery and as expected, and he progressively showed signs of ischemia (poor blood flow) or arterial insufficiency. Two days later, March 20th, he was returned to surgery because of a thrombosis (clotting) of the bypass graft. Dr. #3 performed an embolectomy (clot removal) but was not successful in completely returning the flow. The surgery was performed by Dr. #3 on March 20, and was started at 10:30 a.m. and finished at noon. The surgery shows that a blood clot was found in the left popliteal artery bypass graft, and that a Fogarty catheter was inserted proximally and distally to remove the blood clots. Good pulsation was noted in the popliteal artery, as reported, and it seems that the graft as well as the popliteal artery were reperfused.
It was decided to continue with heparinization (a blood thinner: anticoagulant) of the patient, and the patient was taken to the recovery room in stable condition. Blood loss was reported as 250 ccs (8 ounces). This operative report was dictated on the following day, March 21, at night. It seems that the patient was not able to reperfuse his left leg, and severe life-threatening ischemia was developing. Arrangements were made to transfer the patient to Hospital #2 for further assessment and treatment.
I didn't find details about how the transfer was done, but apparently the patient's condition deterioriated on March 20th. From comments picked up from the patient, the nurses, and the family, it seems that Dr. #3 told the patient's mother that discussions were made to eventually transfer the patient to a more specialized center. Dr. #2 was in surgery and actually was not the one who made the decision since the limb threatening ischemia was the result of vascular problems, and Dr. #3 had to make the decision. The patient finally was transferred late that night to Hospital #2.
In the recovery room, at 12:15, the patient's peripheral pulses were absent upon on return from surgery, contrary to what was reported in the operative note, and there seems to be definite discrepancies in between the way the Surgeon reported it and the way it was clincally assessed in the recovery room.
After being transferred to Hospital #2, the patient came under the care of Dr. #5. He was immediately rushed to the Operating Room because of the seriousness and acuteness of his condition.
Dr. #5 mentioned in his indication for procedure that the patient arrived by helicopter approximately 7 hours after the initial arrangements have been made. I cannot explain such a long delay in between the discussion over the phone and the actual transfer of the patient.
I have found a few notes that the patient was not stable and was bleeding, but also have reports that Dr. #3 was not actually in the hospital at the time where the orders were originating, and I think that the limb threatening situation was quite acute and was necessitating a very rapid transfer by helicopter to Hospital #2.
When he arrived 7 hours post ischemia, it was already too late to do anything, and the limb was probably almost dead, since the golden rule is that there is some chance of revascularization of a limb if there is less than 6 hours of ischemia. From the records and reports, we have indications pointing that the limb was not vascularized from mid morning until the time he arrived to Hospital #2. Although they attempted a salvage procedure, I think that the limb was already almost dead and, if ever revascularized, would have been the source of severe problems and residuals which probably would have lead anyway to an amputation above the knee.
Also, the operative findings of Dr. #5 are quite interesting in saying that he had significant occlusion of the bypass graft, cadaveric appearance of the foot, attesting to my previous comments, and also that the fasciotomy was shown not to go completely down below the leg and were stopping at about the mid third of the calf and actually were not considered as a complete fasciotomy. He also found that the lateral compartment has not been released, and that the medial and anterior compartment was not completely released.
These incompletely released fasciotomities showed that there was muscular tension underneath, possibly muscular necrosis (gangrene) since it was going on for about two days, and those are contributing factors to prevent distal perfusion of the limb, since there is excessive pressure in those compartments.
I do think from the operative findings at Hospital #2, that there was incomplete compartmental release through the fasciotomies; this incomplete release of the compartment of the left leg could have contributed in someway in preventing distal perfusion of the left lower extremities, and constituted also, a source of muscular compromise since it seems that the muscles were under tension and quite bulging after Dr. #5 completed the fasciotomies.
Unfortunately, the revascularization or attempts in salvaging the limbs were unsuccessful and, although the patient had a debridement (cutting out of flesh) of Clostridial gangrene, which is a serious infection originating from dead tissue, he eventually had to go through an above-the-knee amputation in a standard fashion on March 25. This is quite sad, and it seems that this limb could have been saved earlier.
There is also report of a laceration at the popliteal vein, but this was most likely done at the time of the attempt in removing the blood clot on the morning of March 20th.
This case is very complex and interesting and, although he had a very sad and tragic outcome, it raises a few questions. There is definitely indication of a few departures from the accepted standard of care, mainly in the field of Vascular Surgery.
Although there was a transfer of ambulances on the way to Hospital #1, from what I could pick up from the records, which is due to the fact that he needed to have injection of IV drugs to control his pain and symptoms, and this was not available in the first ambulance he took, he was adequately rushed to Hospital #1 in a timely fashion.
The assessment in the Emergency Room by the doctor and by Dr. #2 was done in a timely fashion, and Dr. #2 pointed out that he was suspecting a vascular injury, which is the most common complication and associated injury with anterior dislocation. It happens in about 25-30% of the anterior knee dislocations as reported in the literature.
Closed reduction was done in a standard fashion and timely manner but, what is surprising and could be a source of unnecessary delay and could be departing from the accepted standard of care, is the fact that the patient was extubated, sent to the radiology suite for having a full angiogram, which constituted about two hours delay before starting the actual vascular exploration.
I think there was sufficient clinical evidence and objective findings to attest that there was no pulse returning to the leg, and that the most common cause to it was a vascular injury. This is delineated in every standard textbook, and I think that at this time a vascular exploration should have been decided right then after the closed reduction and without having to go through two hours of delay in performing an angiogram. An on table angiogram could have been done, since it was done by Dr. #3 later on that night, and would have prevented unnecessary delay. We still have to obey by the rules of no more than 6 hours of arterial ischemia to be able to save a limb or to avoid serious residuals or complications.
Then the surgery was done, but retrospectively by analysis of Dr. #5's operative note, it seems that the fasciotomies were not done completely and that the lateral compartment was not released, and this would constitute a departure from at least the standard of care, or the state-of-the-art decompression fasciotomy.
Usually, fasciotomies have to liberate the medial, the anterior and the lateral compartment, and the incision should be carried out down to the distal third of the leg so that all the muscular masses are decompressed. If you leave part of the muscle not decompressed, pressure will build up and the intra-muscular pressure will be superior to the arterial pressure, and will occlude the vessel leading to severe ischemia and eventual necrosis of the muscle. This also constitutes a severe obstacle for reperfusion since the muscles exert extreme pressure and prevent the distal arteries from being reperfused after the bypass surgery was done. So, this constitutes, at least techically, a departure from the state-of-the-art technique.
The follow-up and postoperative care in the first two days seems to be adequate, always there is some detail that could be found, but they don't constitute any major deviation from the accepted standard of care and I don't see any evidence of negligence.
The diagnosis of a thrombus on March 20th was appropriate, the surgery to try to do an embolectomy seems to be adequate, but what I find to be quite suspicious is the fact that the operative reported noted that there was a good distal arterial pulse, and there was completely opposite findings when the patient came to the recovery room. Then, the way the arrangements were done to transfer the patient to Hospital #2 are not quite clear, and there is definitely negligence or departure from the accepted standard of care when you have a limb-threatening ischmia to have nearly 7 hours before the patient arrives at destination, the operating room, for urgent surgery.
For the reason mentioned earlier, I think that the limb was already dead at that time, and they only tried to do a salvage procedure without real chances of success. The fact that Dr. #5 mentioned the 7 hour time frame is basically to point out that he was already beyond the usually accepted time frame for revascularization of a threatened limb.
Basically, the deviation from accepted standard of care and negligence was the way the vascular injury was dealt with. I don't find any deviation from the standard of care from the way the Orthopedic Surgeon did his part, and the only thing that I would question is why didn't he ask for the Vascular Surgeon to come right away and to perform the exploratory surgery
while he was having the patient under general anesthesia and still in the operating room the night of March 17th, instead of letting the patient go to the angiogram suite in radiology.
Based on information and records provided, it would appear that the above issues represent viable avenues of pursuit in this case, for negligence or deviation from the accepted standard of care.
Because of the complexity of this case, and also the fact that it involves mainly vascular repair, a Vascular Surgeon would be recommended since most of the deviation from standard of care or the negligence seems to be pertaining to the diagnosis, repair and treatment of the vascular injury resulting from the anterior left knee dislocation.
I don't see any major issues regarding the way the Orthopedic Surgeons handled that case, and I would focus my attention on the vascular portion of that particular case.
Back to Top
Carotid artery endarterectomy with bovine pericardium patch graft, infection, hemorrhage and death.
The carotid arteries, one on each side of the neck, supply 80 percent of the arterial oxygenated blood to the brain. There is normally a cross connection between these two arteries at the base of the brain, called the Circle of Willis. If one carotid artery is blocked by a build up of cholesterol, called an atherosclerotic plaque and the other one is open by 30 percent or more, usually the blood flow is adequate. But if both only have a small opening, then even in the absence of symptoms, surgery is justified to prevent a potential stroke.
This patient was advised of the 3 percent risk of stroke with surgery, and 10 percent risk over time with conservative care. He was taking the anticoagulant (blood thinner) Coumadin which is the standard of care, particularly because of the severe atherosclerosis involving his legs end the artery bypass grafts to his right leg nine years before. He was also taking a cholesterol-lowering drug, for an unknown amount of time, with an unknown effect on his blood cholesterol. I have not seen those records.
Dr. #1, his Surgeon was performing ultrasound (doppler blood flow studies using sound waves) to monitor his diseased carotid arteries blood flow. The carotid arteries had "bruits" when listened to using a stethoscope because the stenosis (hourglass deformity) causes a whistling sound, which was noted in the surgeon's office records. The blood flow is altered and that is the basis for the ultrasound study.
The ultrasound study showed 15-20% stenosis on the right and 40-50% on the left.
The next year it increased to 25-30% on the right and 45-55% on the left.
The next year it was 25-30% on the right and was 30-35% on the left. The study is a rough guide, and if indicated, the arteriogram (artery x-ray dye study to evaluate the inside of the artery, the "gold standard") can be done as it was subsequently performed three years later.
The next year the right side stenosis increased to 30-35% and the left was 35-40% by ultrasound.
Another way of determining the degree of blood flow impairment is to calculate the ratio of blood flow in the internal carotid artery (going to the brain) divided by the common carotid artery blood flow (going to the face through the external carotid artery branch plus the internal carotid artery). This is the ICA/CCA ratio. On the right side which was finally operated on, the ratio was first documented to be 1.53 (minimal impairment of flow), in the next year it was 1.26, in the next year it was 1.27, in the next year it was 1.29, but two years later it was very high at 7.17. This was a critical stenosis which markedly impaired blood flow and could suddenly block off. The left side had a value of 2.15 which is a moderate to severe stenosis.
To further evaluate this stenosis he had the arteriogram study on March 23. Dr. #1 performed the study and confirmed the critical stenosis on the right and a severe stenosis on the left. His drawings show what he found. The Radiologist also evaluated these x-rays and found that the stenosis on the right was greater than 95% and had plaque formation (irregular interior from atherosclerosis, increasing the risk of blood clot formation), and at least 90% narrowing on the left. This confirmed the previous evaluation.
The patient was informed of the 3% risk of stroke with surgery and 10% risk without the operation to clean out the blockage (carotid endarterectomy). I do no know if he was informed of other risks such as infection, bleeding and death. If he was not, that would be lack of informed consent. But the over all risk was greater without surgery, and the operation was indicated.
The plan was to operate on the right side and then the left side a few months later. That was reasonable.
A Cardiologist evaluated this patient as a surgery candidate on April 28, modified his blood pressure medication and felt that his coronary (heart) artery disease was "stable". He was also taking the anticoagulant Coumadin as 10 milligrams daily and 15 mg. on the weekends. This was discontinued a few days before surgery as was proper, but the note by the surgeon said he had been taking 5 mg. per day, which is in error.
The operation took place on May 8, and after using the iodine skin preparation to try to sterilize the skin, the surgery was done in the standard manner with the use of a temporary shunt (blood tube conduct inside the artery to maintain blood flow to the brain during most of this operation). The surgeon said: "….because of the size of the artery we elected to use an oval piece of Bovine (cow) pericardium (heart sac) which was then sutured to the artery…". This allows the artery to be sutured closed without narrowing its hollow passageway (lumen). It should have been obtained by the supplier ("manufacturer") sterily and its sterility tested and maintained.
The Pathologist confirmed that "the vessel wall shows heavy atherosclerotic changes including calcifications (bone like changes").
The patient awoke after surgery and had no neurological damage (stroke). He was discharged home on May 10 "on Coumadin", but I do not know what dose. He "left for home with scripts (prescriptions) and instructions which he understands".
I have not seen any further office or hospital records except for a few laboratory reports. They show that there was not any overdose effect from the Coumadin (The INR was 1.07 on May 17, which shows very little Coumidan anticoagulation effect). He came in anemic from blood loss (HCT of 31) that became dangerously low (25) by 1:30 pm on May 17. It increased to 27 on May 18 and to 28.8 on May 19. I do not know how much blood he received, but this amount of anemia is dangerous for a cardiac patient.
The blood clot (hematoma) and carotid graft site had tests for germs (culture and sensitivity studies) and both showed the presence of the germ "coagulase negative staph". This is a common skin germ but can be pathologic (cause infections) in the body, as it appears to have done here.
Without seeing the in hospital records from May 17 through his death on May 22, I will give you some opinions that may change when all of those records are supplied.
When a graft site becomes infected, there is a risk of rupture of the suture line, which results in massive bleeding into the neck. Sometimes there is leakage with local pain and swelling increasing over time, and that requires urgent hospitalizations and tests such as a CT Scan, MRI and/or arteriogram to confirm the diagnosis, and emergency surgery to control the bleeding, to prevent death.
It is possible that the Bovine pericardium patch graft was not obtained under sterile conditions or not properly handled and sterilized. This would be a manufacturer product liability problem. Possibly the hospital violated sterile precautions and technique in opening the package.
There is always the possibility that the surgeon's or assistant's glove tore from a needle stick and contaminated the operative site. That can happen in the absence of negligence.
I do not know if prophylactic (preventive) antibiotics were used. If this was surgery to put in a synthetic graft, or artificial hip, for example, then antibiotics are given immediately prior to surgery, and for one or tow days thereafter. With a small piece of Bovine pericardium, which is natural flesh, in my opinion, antibiotic use would normally be optional. However, he was a diabetic on insulin, which means that he was much more susceptible to infection, and there would be more reason to use prophylactic antibiotics. Others would say that this was a "judgement call".
In addition, to the question of product liability, I do not know how long he was on cholesterol lowering medication. This would be especially important in his case, since he had severe known vascular disease with arterial grafts inserted ten years earlier, and because of his diabetes which causes atherosclerosis (cholesterol deposition in the walls of all arteries including his heart and carotid arteries) whose disease was known for some years. The failure to try to control his blood cholesterol level would be negligent.
It may be worthwhile to review the May 17-22 hospital records to determine if there were any departures from the standards of care, including failure of timely transfusions that may have caused or increased his risks of dying.
The office records of his medical doctors, including #2 and the Cardiologist Dr. #3, both Osteopathic Physicians, should be obtained to determine how they treated his elevated cholesterol. Without progression of his carotid artery disease, he would not have had that operation, whose delayed complication resulted in his premature death.
Was an autopsy performed? If it was obtain a complete copy of that report.
After review of those missing records, it may be reasonable for us to obtain opinions by Experts in Infectious Disease, Cardiology and Vascular Surgery, pursuant to our current Fee Schedule.
Back to Top
|
